The following quotes are cited by Alan C. Clifford in his book “Atonement and Justification”:
“The personal views of the Reformers are no less convincing. John Hooper (1495-1555) affirmed that Christ died ‘for the love of us poor and miserable sinners, whose place he occupied upon the cross, as a pledge, or one that represented the person of all the sinners that ever were, be now, or shall be unto the world’s end’. [77]”
Hooper says that Christ represented all without exception. So then, what exactly did Christ accomplish in Hooper’s blinded estimate? NOTHING. But what about those who are supposedly “saved”? Well, it was something THEY DID that somehow gave the cross of Christ its propitiating power. In other words, they put their “faith” — Satanic, anti-christian, and blood-despising unbelief rather — in the STEAD of Christ’s blood as what makes the difference between propitiation and non-propitiation. True faith in Christ’s blood (Romans 3:25) believes that it actually propitiates (what a concept!). Hooper’s “faith” (i.e., unbelief) does NOT believe that Christ’s propitiatory blood has power of itself to turn aside God’s holy wrath. Thus, Hooper does NOT have faith in Christ’s blood (cf. Romans 3:25).
Hooper says that the blood is for “all the sinners that ever were, be now, or shall be unto the world’s end.” Hooper would have a “passover” where the blood is on all the doors “that ever were, be now, or shall be unto the world’s end.” And thus, in the blood-vilifying view of Hooper there would have to be one of two things going on:
Either this god thinks the blood has no importance and just condemns at random, or this god finds something good in some of the houses with blood on them as compared to other houses with blood on them, thus not basing his passing over on the blood at all but on something in the households themselves. Then the question must be asked, “Well, why would the blood on the house be needed at all, since it doesn’t make the difference between being passed over and being condemned?” The answer is, “The blood wouldn’t be needed at all. The blood itself is without value.”
“Hugh Latimer (1485-1555) could preach that ‘Christ shed as much blood for Judas, as he did for Peter: Peter believed it, and therefore he was saved; Judas would not believe, and therefore he was condemned’. [78]”
Wasn’t Latimer depicted by Foxe as one of the so-called “martyrs of the faith”? Well, as is clearly and sadly evinced by Latimer’s horrendous quote, his faith certainly was not the faith of God’s elect. However, I’m not saying that Latimer was necessarily reprobate (non-elect) but the quote of him showed him to be necessarily unregenerate at the time he penned that pestilence.
“Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556) also says that Christ ‘by His own oblation…satisfied His Father for all men’s sins and reconciled mankind unto His grace and favour…’ [79]”
If Christ “satisfied His Father for all men’s sins and reconciled mankind unto His grace and favour” then why does anyone perish? If Christ “satisfied His Father”[‘s] justice, then why does anyone endure the Father’s justice for all eternity? I thought Cranmer just said the Father was satisfied? Of course, Cranmer did say He was satisfied, but he lied — just like his father the devil.
“John Bradford (1520-55) explains these universalist statements with reference to election when he asserts that ‘Christ’s death is sufficient for all, but effectual for the elect only’. [80]”
Bradford repeats the popular Calvinist mantra which is just the Calvinist version of universal atonement (in distinction from the Arminian version, both of which are equally damnable).
“The Elizabethan Anglicans were no different in their understanding. John Jewel (1552-71) wrote that on the cross Christ declared ‘It is finished’ to signify ‘that the price and ransom was now full paid for the sin of all mankind’. [81] Elsewhere he proclaimed that ‘The death of Christ is available for the redemption of all the world…’ [82]”
More of the insatiable desire to lie about the Person and Work of Christ — just like their father the devil, so these “Elizabethan Anglicans” desired to do.
“Richard Hooker (1553-1600) states an identical view when he says that Christ’s ‘precious and propitiatory sacrifice’ was ‘offered for the sins of all the world…'[83] Against this theological background, John Davenant (1570-1641) argued that, notwithstanding God’s secret decree of predestination, ‘The death of Christ is the universal cause of the salvation of mankind, and Christ himself is acknowledged to have died for all men sufficiently…by reason of the Evangelical covenant confirmed with the whole human race through the merit of his death…’ [84]”
More lies from the mouths of those whose hearts are fat with self-righteousness. John Davenant is yet another bloke brimming with self-righteousness. He says that Christ suffered, or “died for all men sufficiently.”
” … The Caroline divines of the seventeenth-century, both before and after the Interregnum, generally adhered to an Arminian soteriology. Undeterred by scholastic Calvinism, they rejected double predestination, insisting that Article XVII could be harmonized with election based on faith forseen. However, Arminianism could not be justly blamed for their view of the atonement, as Clement Barksdale made clear in 1653:
‘You are mistaken when you think the doctrine of Universal Redemption Arminianisme. It was the doctrine of the Church of England before Arminius was borne. We learne it out of the old Church-Catechisme. I believe in Jesus Christ, who hath redeemed me and all mankind. And the Church hath learned it out of the plaine scripture, where Christ is the Lamb of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world. [86]'”
It was the doctrine of the Synagogue of Satan located in England. The Arminians have their damnable version of universal atonement and the professing Calvinist adherents to the church of England’s articles have their damnable version as well.
“This was substantially John Wesley’s defence against his high Calvinist critics. In his view the Arminians simply reaffirmed the teaching of the Reformation and the Bible.
It is surely significant that the eighteenth century moderate Calvinists shared Wesley’s view of the extent of the atonement, even if they distanced themselves from his understanding of Article XVII. In short, between the polarized positions of Wesley and Whitefield, the earlier ‘Anglican Calvinist’ tradition re-emerged in the wake of the Methodist revival. While shunning Arminianism, John Newton (1725-1807) still shared Wesley’s aversion to high Calvinism:
‘That there is an election of grace, we are plainly taught; yet it is not said, ‘that Jesus Christ came into the world to save ‘the elect’, but that he came to save ‘sinners’, to ‘seek and save them that are lost’…And therefore the command to repent implies a warrant to believe in the name of Jesus, as taking away the sin of the world.'” [87]
Despite their bickering, Wesley and Whitefield embraced each other as spiritual brothers in a common anti-christian faith that believed that Christ could not save without an additional work of man. Whitefield showed that he was a compromising whore by his spiritual promiscuous embracing of Wesley.
“…Having little sympathy for Arminianism, Ryle was equally aware of the threat posed by high Calvinism. After appealing to Davenant, Calvin, and other commentators, he concludes:
‘Those who confine God’s love exclusively to the elect appear to me to take a narrow and contracted view of God’s character and attributes….I have long come to the conclusion that men may be more systematic in their statements than the Bible, and may be led into grave error by idolatrous veneration of a system'”[89] (Clifford, Atonement and Justification, pp. 79-81).”
I suppose Clifford forgot that he had cited J.C. Ryle on page 61 as saying that,
‘Whether we like it or not, John Wesley was a mighty instrument in God’s hand for good; and, next to George Whitefield, was the first and foremost evangelist of England a hundred years ago’ (Christian Leaders, p. 105).
Clifford said that Ryle had “little sympathy for Arminianism.” Perhaps this “little sympathy” is shown in Ryle’s statement “Whether we like it or not” because to assert the Satanic sentiment that a blatant hater of truth is “a mighty instrument in God’s hand for good” goes way beyond a “little sympathy.” J.C. Ryle and John Wesley are clearly shown to be wicked co-conspirators against the God of Truth and the souls of men (2 John 9-11; cf. Ezekiel 13:10-16).
End Notes [Found on page 92 of Alan C. Clifford’s work “Atonement and Justification: English Evangelical Theology 1640-1790–An Evaluation –CD]
77. Later Writings of Bishop Hooper (Cambridge, 1852), 31.
78. Sermons by Hugh Latimer (Cambridge, 1844), ii. 521.
79. The Works of Thomas Cranmer (Cambridge, 1844), i. 346.
80. Sermons (Cambridge, 1848), i. 320.
81. ‘Apologia ecclesiae Anglicanae’, The Works of John Jewel (Cambridge, 1848), iii. 66.
82. Homilies, p. 310.
83. ‘The laws of ecclesiastical polity’, The Works of that Learned and Judicious Divine Mr Richard Hooker, ed. John Keble (Oxford, 1836), iii. 71.
84. ‘A dissertation on the death of Christ’, trans. J. Allport, in A commentary on the Epistle to the Colossians (London, 1832), ii, at p. 401. For a similar view of the covenant of grace see N. Shepherd, ‘The covenant context for Evangelism’, in The New Testament Student and Theology, ed. J.H. Skilton (Phillipsburg, NJ, 1976), 54-65.
86. Cited in J. W. Packer, The Transformation of Anglicanism 1643-1660 (Manchester, 1969), 56.
87. The Works of the Revd John Newton (London, 1808), iv. 192-5.
89. Expository Thoughts on the Gospels (London, 1865), St John, i. 159.
Agrammatos 